patrick.net

Goran_K says

anon_13e7f says

Deniers are typically conspiracy theorists. They believe that climate change due to CO2 is a government conspiracy.

Most people aren't deniers, but there are a large category of skeptics who ask very good questions that for some reason get ignored by the Climate Change cult.

Exactly..

Skeptics don't drink the kool-aid and question statements not supported by true data, and don't rely on fudged models that are designed with a specific endpoint in mind.

Heraclitusstudent says

Since we have proven the greenhouse effect takes place,

How will the "alarmists" stop water vapor from being created? Is there a model for that?

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Do you admit that it is very difficult to accurately predict the sequence, but easier to predict the number of heads for a given number of tosses? In fact over the long term, the prediction becomes very accurate.

How does flipping a coin have anything to do with predicting the future?
Never mind, I get it. The future can't be predicted.

We can hope for the best and prepare for the worst but we have a much better chance of predicting the weather 2 weeks from now than the climate 2 decades from now. Any predictions on February 1 weather? You're guessing.

Now why wont anyone, besides dan from Florida, make a statement on what earth's ideal temp should be?

I say a couple of degrees warmer like the Roman warming period.

If you can't say what would be good how can you say warming is bad?

Flipping a coin illustrates the difference between a statistical characterization of results and a sequence of events.
The number of heads in a group of coin flips and the average weather (climate) represent a statistical characterization of a series of events. The actual sequence, which is a list of coin flips or a series of daily weather events is the sequence. The statistical characterization is easier to predict than the sequence. If you don't understand this, then neither of us will learn anything from each other, so I'm pulling the plug on my half of this conversation. If you do understand it, then you will have to admit that failure to predict weather does not mean that we cannot predict climate. It is simply easier to predict climate than weather.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Flipping a coin illustrates the difference between a statistical characterization of results and a sequence of events.

Flip a coin, heads. Flip it again, tails. It's still a flip of a coin. Can you say a thousand coin flips will turn out to be evenly distributed? How many coins do you have to flip before FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

The statistical characterization is easier to predict than the sequence.

Ultimately it's a flip of the coin. Easy to model as there is one binary variable. Heads or tails.
The weather, and thus the climate, has countless multi-valued variables, and unknown feedback effects.

Would you say someone was naive to think they could accurately predict how many heads they will turn out of 1,000,000 flips of a coin? What makes you think anyone can create a model to predict climate a century, a decade, or even 5 years from now?

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

But saying that you cannot predict all of the coin flip results does not mean you cannot predict the number of heads. Same goes for the climate.

Onvacation says

What makes you think anyone can create a model to predict climate a century, a decade, or even 5 years from now?

It's nothing real world like flipping a coin
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

You still don't see to understand statistics,

Just because you are on the steep part of some natural cycle does not mean it's the asymptote of an exponential phenomenon. Hope you get the reference.
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

have a nice day.

Thank you very much. You too.